Robinson v. Kernan

April 6, 2009

DANIEL MATHEW ROBINSON, PETITIONER,v.SCOTT KERNAN, RESPONDENT.

ORDER

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He alleges that the state court erred in imposing an elevated upper-term sentence, in violation of his constitutional rights. See Pet. at 6-7.

Petitioner is incarcerated at Mule Creek State Prison, in Ione, California, which is located in the Eastern District of California. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced in the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, California, which lies in the Central District of California.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 2241(d), courts in both the district of conviction and the district of confinement have concurrent jurisdiction over applications for habeas corpus filed by state prisoners. However, habeas petitions that challenge a state court conviction or sentence are best heard in the federal district court where the venue of the sentencing state court lies. See In re Cross, 1995 WL 715820 (N.D.Cal.) In this case, the venue of the sentencing court is in the Central District of California.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d); 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.